Why Greenland Matters to the United States, and Why Some People Are Sceptical

8 January 2026

Paul Francis

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

Greenland has become an increasingly prominent part of global geopolitical discussion, particularly in relation to the United States. On the surface, the interest can appear puzzling. Greenland has a small population, harsh conditions, and limited infrastructure. Yet for Washington, it represents one of the most strategically significant territories in the world.

Snow-covered mountains and rocky peaks rise above a deep blue sea, under a clear sky, creating a serene and majestic landscape.

At the same time, recent events elsewhere have led many observers to question whether security alone explains American interest in regions rich in natural resources. Greenland now sits at the intersection of strategic necessity and public scepticism.

Greenland’s strategic importance to US security

The primary and most consistently stated reason for US interest in Greenland is security.

Greenland occupies a crucial geographic position between North America and Europe. It sits along the shortest route for ballistic missiles travelling between Russia and the United States. This makes it essential for early warning systems and missile defence.

The US has maintained a military presence in Greenland since the Second World War. Today, Pituffik Space Base plays a key role in monitoring missile launches, tracking satellites, and supporting NATO defence architecture. These systems are designed to protect not only the United States but also its allies.

As Arctic ice continues to melt, the region is becoming more accessible to military and commercial activity. Russia has expanded its Arctic bases, and China has declared itself a near-Arctic state. From Washington’s perspective, maintaining influence in Greenland helps prevent rivals from gaining a foothold in a region that directly affects North Atlantic security.

The Arctic, climate change, and future competition

Climate change has transformed Greenland’s relevance. What was once largely inaccessible is now opening up.

New shipping routes could shorten trade paths between Asia, Europe, and North America. Scientific research, undersea cables, and surveillance infrastructure are all becoming more viable. Greenland’s location places it at the centre of these emerging routes.

For the United States, this makes Greenland less of a remote territory and more of a forward position in an increasingly contested region.

Red Mobil barrel secured with ropes on wood structure, against a cloudy sky. Blue pipes and rusty metal bar in background.

Oil and resource speculation as a secondary factor

While security dominates official policy discussions, resource speculation is often raised as an additional reason for interest in Greenland.

Greenland is believed to hold potential offshore oil and gas reserves, as well as deposits of rare earth elements, lithium, graphite, and other critical minerals. These materials are essential for electronics, renewable energy systems, and defence technologies.

It is important to note that Greenland currently restricts new oil and gas exploration licences, largely due to environmental concerns. Large-scale extraction remains difficult, expensive, and politically sensitive.

For the United States, oil is not a strategic necessity in Greenland. The country is already one of the world’s largest oil producers. However, critical minerals are a longer-term concern. The US remains heavily dependent on foreign supply chains, particularly from China, for many of these materials.

This makes Greenland attractive as a potential future partner rather than an immediate resource solution.

Why scepticism exists

Despite official explanations, scepticism persists, and not without reason.

In recent years, the United States has taken highly visible actions elsewhere that involved control over oil production and transport. These actions have reinforced a long-standing public perception that resource interests sometimes sit beneath security justifications.

The Iraq War remains a powerful reference point. Although the official rationale focused on weapons and security threats, the protection and control of oil fields became a defining feature of the conflict in the public imagination. That perception continues to shape how many people interpret US foreign policy today.

More recently, actions involving sanctions, tanker seizures, and control of oil revenues in other regions have revived these concerns. When military or economic pressure coincides with resource-rich territories, scepticism follows.

Against this backdrop, even legitimate security interests can be viewed through a lens of historical mistrust.

Greenland is not Iraq, but history shapes perception

Greenland differs significantly from past conflict zones. It is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO ally. The United States does not dispute Danish sovereignty and has repeatedly stated that Greenland’s future must be decided by its people.

US engagement in Greenland has focused on diplomacy, scientific cooperation, and defence partnerships rather than intervention. There has been no military conflict, no occupation, and no attempt to forcibly extract resources.

However, history matters. Public opinion is shaped not only by current actions but by patterns over time. When people see strategic interest combined with resource potential, they naturally draw comparisons.

Denmark’s role as a stabilising factor

Denmark plays a crucial role in shaping how Greenland is engaged internationally. As the sovereign state responsible for defence and foreign policy, Denmark ensures that US involvement occurs within established legal and diplomatic frameworks.

This partnership reduces the likelihood of unilateral action and helps keep Greenland’s development aligned with environmental standards and local governance.

The broader reality

Greenland’s importance to the United States is real, and it is primarily rooted in geography and defence. Resource speculation exists, but it is not the driving force behind current policy.

At the same time, scepticism is understandable. History has taught many people to question official narratives when strategic interests and natural resources overlap.

The truth lies in the tension between these two realities. Greenland matters because of where it is, what it enables, and what it may one day provide. How it is treated will determine whether it becomes a model of cooperation or another chapter in a long story of mistrust.

Greenland is not a prize to be taken, but a partner to be engaged. Whether that distinction holds in the long term will depend not just on policy statements, but on actions.

In a world shaped by climate change, great power competition, and historical memory, even legitimate interests must contend with the weight of the past.

Current Most Read

Why Netflix Is Circling Warner Bros, and How a Century-Old Studio Reached This Point

What Christmas 2025 Revealed About the Future of Consoles

The Unravelling of Village Roadshow: What It Means for the Global Film and Television Industry

Paul Francis
May 2, 2025
4 min read

The once-mighty co-producer of The Matrix, Joker, and Mad Max: Fury Road has hit a critical crossroads. In March, Village Roadshow Entertainment Group (VREG), the U.S. arm of the iconic Australian brand, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, citing nearly $400 million in secured debt. This event marks a pivotal moment for the global film industry, where shifting models, legal disputes, and post-pandemic economics are converging in disruptive ways.

While Village Roadshow’s Australian operations — including its studio, cinema, and theme park divisions — remain stable, the collapse of its American entertainment group raises pressing questions about the future of film financing, content ownership, and production geography. The repercussions are likely to extend beyond the company itself, affecting studios, investors, talent, and streaming platforms.

Who Is Village Roadshow? A Legacy of Entertainment

Founded in 1954 in Melbourne by Roc Kirby, Village Roadshow began as a suburban drive-in cinema operator and evolved into one of Australia’s largest entertainment conglomerates. The name became synonymous with cinema culture across the country and, later, with Hollywood-level film production.

Expansion into Global Film Production

In the 1990s and early 2000s, Village Roadshow established Village Roadshow Pictures, headquartered in Los Angeles. The company entered a long-standing co-financing relationship with Warner Bros., helping bankroll a string of major commercial and critical hits.

Key productions include:

The Matrix trilogy and The Matrix Resurrections
Joker (2019)
Ocean’s Eleven and its sequels
American Sniper
Mad Max: Fury Road
Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr. series)
Ready Player One
Edge of Tomorrow
The Lego Movie

This co-financing model allowed studios to reduce risk while giving Village Roadshow a lucrative stake in high-performing properties. At its height, Village Roadshow Pictures helped raise billions of dollars in private equity and debt financing, aligning Wall Street capital with Hollywood creativity.

What Went Wrong?

VREG’s bankruptcy filing in Delaware outlines $393 million in secured debt and reveals the fallout of years of shifting strategies and legal turmoil.

1. Legal Battles with Warner Bros.

In 2022, Village Roadshow filed a high-profile lawsuit against Warner Bros., claiming that the simultaneous release of The Matrix Resurrections in theatres and on HBO Max violated their contract. They argued that the move deliberately undermined box office revenue and devalued the IP. The lawsuit reportedly cost over $18 million in legal fees, draining resources with a limited return.

2. Unsuccessful Diversification

After a change in leadership and investor pressure, VREG expanded into independent film and TV production, moving away from its historic studio-aligned model. However, the returns on these projects failed to match expectations. As the market tilted further toward streaming dominance, the company struggled to secure distribution and capital.

3. The Post-COVID Industry Reset

The broader film industry continues to recover from the pandemic-induced collapse of theatrical exhibition. With fewer high-budget projects being greenlit and a saturated streaming market, independent co-financiers like VREG have found themselves squeezed between risk-averse studios and demanding capital markets.

Australian Operations: Stable, but Splitting

Importantly, Village Roadshow’s Australian business is not part of the bankruptcy proceedings. Now under the control of private equity firm Bain Capital, the Australian division includes:

Village Roadshow Studios (Queensland), one of the top film production facilities in the Southern Hemisphere.
Theme Parks including Warner Bros. Movie World, Sea World, and Wet’n’Wild.
Village Cinemas, a major theatre operator across Australia.

The Australian business has revoked VREG’s licence to use the “Village Roadshow” name, effectively creating a branding and operational divorce between the two entities. Australian CEO Clark Kirby emphasised the company’s independence, citing profitability and a strong production pipeline, including:

A new Monsterverse film, injecting $93 million into the local economy.
A live-action Voltron adaptation starring Henry Cavill, with a projected $100 million+ spend in Queensland.

What This Means for the Industry

The collapse of VREG is more than the downfall of a single co-producer — it signals deeper changes in how film and television content is financed, produced, and controlled.

1. The Death of the Co-Financing Era?

Village Roadshow was one of the last major players in the co-financing model, a structure that allowed outside investors to share in the upside of blockbuster filmmaking. As studios consolidate (e.g. Warner Bros. Discovery, Disney-Fox) and pivot to in-house streaming content, external financiers are being squeezed out.

This bankruptcy may signal the end of an era where companies like VREG played a vital supporting role in tentpole cinema. The risks are higher, the margins lower, and legal complications around distribution are more complex in a post-streaming world.

2. Back Catalogue Wars

Village Roadshow's bankruptcy filing includes plans to sell its film library, comprising 108 titles that generate around $50 million in annual income. If acquired by a firm like Content Partners, the rights to iconic films may be broken up, restructured, or withheld from public platforms.

This could complicate availability for streaming services, international licensing deals, and even the development of sequels or remakes. For audiences and creatives alike, the fragmentation of IP ownership represents a growing obstacle to cohesive storytelling across platforms.

3. Australia’s Rise as a Production Hub

While VREG falters, Australia is gaining ground as a global production location. Tax incentives, world-class facilities, and pandemic-era reliability have drawn productions from Netflix, Warner Bros., and Disney. Village Roadshow Studios alone has hosted major projects including:

Elvis (Baz Luhrmann)
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales
Aquaman

This trend may accelerate as international producers seek stable, cost-effective locations outside the U.S. and UK. Australia could emerge as a geopolitical counterweight to Hollywood, particularly in Asia-Pacific content strategies.

4. A Legal Precedent in the Streaming Wars

The Matrix Resurrections lawsuit foreshadowed a broader reckoning over day-and-date releases. Studios, investors, and talent agents now insist on clearer contractual protections around streaming distribution. Future financing agreements may need to explicitly account for digital release strategies, backend deals, and windowing rights, or risk collapse.

A Turning Point for Global Entertainment

Village Roadshow’s financial unravelling is not an isolated event — it is a symptom of a deeper transformation in the film and television business. The collapse of a major co-financing pillar exposes the fragile economics behind even the most beloved blockbusters. At the same time, it offers opportunities for production hubs like Australia to redefine where — and how — global content is made.

As the industry reorients around streaming, IP control, and international expansion, the legacy of Village Roadshow serves as both a cautionary tale and a blueprint for the next generation of media companies.